After my eharmony incidient, I never paid for a dating website again. I figured if a guy was interested, they would figure out a way to contact me. It worked. I never let the pressure of "what if" get in the way. I had a friend who paid for ever one of those services, and she kept paying for them even after she didn't want to. She just forgot they were still collecting their money from her account because she forgot to tell them to cancel her.
I heard also that eHarmony is used as a recruiting tool for evangelical Christians. They were initially tied together with Focus on the Family, a Christian dominionist group, and I think they still have some issues with rejecting non-Christians. I had a Catholic friend sign up for the service and she complained quite a bit about how they always matched her with people who simply wanted to "witness" to her. I don't know if this is a universal problem or not, but I wouldn't trust eHarmony.
I loved the article. Even more the link to another article about a lesbian from San Francisco suing because they will not match gays.
Lets face the fact that a large percentage of their base customers come from Protestant churches and the like. James Dobsons endorsement will suck in many single Christians.
I have been thinking about what church singles group to try and get my 25 yr old son to go to. He is hearing that clock ticking in his ear. It doesn't help when every Saturday he is out at the soccer field coaching little kids. This is a young man who makes a decent living, owns his own house, and women find good looking. If I was 6'7" 210# and as good looking as that boy I would be broke chasing women.
I loved the article. Even more the link to another article about a lesbian from San Francisco suing because they will not match gays.
Lets face the fact that a large percentage of their base customers come from Protestant churches and the like. James Dobsons endorsement will suck in many single Christians.
I have been thinking about what church singles group to try and get my 25 yr old son to go to. He is hearing that clock ticking in his ear. It doesn't help when every Saturday he is out at the soccer field coaching little kids. This is a young man who makes a decent living, owns his own house, and women find good looking. If I was 6'7" 210# and as good looking as that boy I would be broke chasing women.
If I had not met my wife until I did, I would have waited until my 30's to get married. We men don't have the problem of age that women had -- we become sexier as we get older. He should go have some fun and he'll meet a good woman. I don't know how your church is, but limiting yourself to the pool of ladies at one particular church is a bit stifling. I would think that he needs to get out more and away from the church too just to check things out. He should sign up for dance lessons somewhere. I have a friend that used to go to a few dancing studios in Houston where he met all kinds of girls. My wife and I took lessons at one, and we had fun and made a few friends. Had I been single, I could have easily gone out with at least a few of the women there. If he wants to get a girlfriend he needs to think outside of the box (no pun intended.)
As far as the women suing because of the lack of matching gays, it's a tricky subject because it does fall afoul of some anti-discrimination laws, but at the same time they should be allowed to operate however they want. I think it's a dumb business move, but I don't own stock in them so I have no say.
If a guy drops in front of your door, still make him jump the hoops....you are worth it! I love ya Belle darlin', and if I were a man, I'd date you in a heartbeat. :P
It's an observation of society and double standards. There are plenty of old men that are viewed as attractive by women -- George Clooney, Sean Connery, Harrison Ford, etc. Women, on the other hand, are pretty much forced to try to appear the same as they did in their 20's. I'm not saying that it's fair, but that is how our society operates.
Not they are NOT. They focus on the family from a Christian perspective.
From that logic, that makes the NAACP a Negro dominionist group, the ACLU an athiest dominionist group, etc.
Christian dominionist do exist. FOTF are not them.
I hate to drag this too far off topic, but FOTF are an extremist group and do support dominionist policies. They are in favor of forcing children to pray at school, they are trying to rewrite history to make people think the U.S. was founded upon Christianity, and they strongly influence the Republican party and are heavily involved with politics. Why would they be involved with politics and have those views that I mentioned if they were not dominionists?
I'd answer, Mosh, but you've made up your mind. Extremist? Please.
Is it okay for people, regardless their beliefs, to be politcally involved? Or is it that only 'approved list' beliefs need apply?
That depends on your definition of being "politically involved." If it is to strengthen the country and do good, then people should be involved. If the goal is to subvert the principles the country was founded upon (freedom, not religion) in order to force people to follow your religion, then I'm against it.
They're not trying to force people to follow their religion. They are advocating for the family, pure and simple, according to their stated principles.. You may disagree with their advocacy, fine. But it sounds like you'd like to be the arbiter of what constitutes acceptable free speech. I think muzzling them would be unconstitutional.
If you'll take an honest look at their ministry from top to bottom you'll see what an enormous force for good they've been. Don't let your disagreement with their political advocacy blind you.
I'd much rather be without one than be with the wrong one.
The converse is also true (I'd much rather be without a woman than to be with the wrong one... I know, that might not technically be the converse, but it sounded good inside my head).
This is the BEST advice any woman (or man) could ever get.
Some people believe it is better to have loved than not love at all. Those are people willing to take a bigger risk IMHO.
I'd rather learn my lesson in fewer times because as Sushi says:
THE LESSONS ARE REPEATED UNTIL THEY ARE LEARNED.
I willingly took that risk (as far as getting married) once... that was plenty for me.
btw, putting my thoughts in terms of the title of this thread, I REJECT eharmony as being discordant and any other adjective one might want to use.
They're not trying to force people to follow their religion. They are advocating for the family, pure and simple, according to their stated principles.. You may disagree with their advocacy, fine. But it sounds like you'd like to be the arbiter of what constitutes acceptable free speech. I think muzzling them would be unconstitutional.
If you'll take an honest look at their ministry from top to bottom you'll see what an enormous force for good they've been. Don't let your disagreement with their political advocacy blind you.
Awh, come on Evan... you've got to know that's complete BS.
FOTF and Jim Dobson advocate (vociferously) to make US (yes, the US of A) live by their religion, by way of changes to the United States Code (federal laws) .
Nonsense. They consistently advocate on life issues, pornography, fatherhood, motherhood, child-raising issues, marriage issues, et al. Those are social issues, not religious. Their worldview that forms their position is informed by their Christianity, yes. Does that disqualify them from the the marketplace of public opinion?
Nobody's forcing anybody to do anything. A small part of their ministry is using public forii to attempt to influence public opinion on the issues they advocate. If they are successful, the public will elect (yes, by majority) officials who share their values. If they are unsuccessful, it won't happen. Do I characterize laws enacted by pro choicers (for instance) to increase access to abortion as forcing me to live by their beliefs. No. Why? That's Not Honest.
If you listened to their radio broadcast daily for a few weeks you'd quickly realize that their Focus is not political at all, but on the Family. That their Focus informs their political stance is as it should be.
eharmony? I already have harmony in the home, cultivated over 26 years and involving much yielding, cooperation, mutual support, forgiveness and at times, putting up with. I feel for those who haven't had marital success and I pray those who want another go at it have good success.
Yeah, Highway, I concur. I've come to really enjoy "my" time and "my" place and doing things with others when I choose to. I'm perfectly okay with being alone for the rest of my life if Mr. Perfect doesn't show up. I'd much rather be comfortable being me and being alone than with someone who doesn't share mutual love and respect.
Funny thing about eHarmony is I looked into it when I was doing the online dating thing and I didn't even want to sign up with them because it looked like a Christian dating site and the last person I want a relationship with is another religious Jesus freak - no matter what "ministry" he belongs to.
A date is like a job interview that goes on all night.
I guess that can be funny. But honestly if you feel you are on a job interview all night, then you probably won't be having another date with that person. Not all dates are that way. ;P
If this guy's such a hotshot matchmaker and all, it would be kinda ironic if he were single himself, wouldn't it?
There's information on the web saying his wife's name is Marilyn, and she is the VP of Eharmony. I haven't been able to find a picture. Maybe she wants Mr. Warren to be the PR man?
Recommended Posts
Nottawayfer
After my eharmony incidient, I never paid for a dating website again. I figured if a guy was interested, they would figure out a way to contact me. It worked. I never let the pressure of "what if" get in the way. I had a friend who paid for ever one of those services, and she kept paying for them even after she didn't want to. She just forgot they were still collecting their money from her account because she forgot to tell them to cancel her.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I heard also that eHarmony is used as a recruiting tool for evangelical Christians. They were initially tied together with Focus on the Family, a Christian dominionist group, and I think they still have some issues with rejecting non-Christians. I had a Catholic friend sign up for the service and she complained quite a bit about how they always matched her with people who simply wanted to "witness" to her. I don't know if this is a universal problem or not, but I wouldn't trust eHarmony.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex70sHouston
I loved the article. Even more the link to another article about a lesbian from San Francisco suing because they will not match gays.
Lets face the fact that a large percentage of their base customers come from Protestant churches and the like. James Dobsons endorsement will suck in many single Christians.
I have been thinking about what church singles group to try and get my 25 yr old son to go to. He is hearing that clock ticking in his ear. It doesn't help when every Saturday he is out at the soccer field coaching little kids. This is a young man who makes a decent living, owns his own house, and women find good looking. If I was 6'7" 210# and as good looking as that boy I would be broke chasing women.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
If I had not met my wife until I did, I would have waited until my 30's to get married. We men don't have the problem of age that women had -- we become sexier as we get older. He should go have some fun and he'll meet a good woman. I don't know how your church is, but limiting yourself to the pool of ladies at one particular church is a bit stifling. I would think that he needs to get out more and away from the church too just to check things out. He should sign up for dance lessons somewhere. I have a friend that used to go to a few dancing studios in Houston where he met all kinds of girls. My wife and I took lessons at one, and we had fun and made a few friends. Had I been single, I could have easily gone out with at least a few of the women there. If he wants to get a girlfriend he needs to think outside of the box (no pun intended.)
As far as the women suing because of the lack of matching gays, it's a tricky subject because it does fall afoul of some anti-discrimination laws, but at the same time they should be allowed to operate however they want. I think it's a dumb business move, but I don't own stock in them so I have no say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
excuse me ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I just gave up dating. If God wants me married, he's gonna have to drop him off at my front door.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
If a guy drops in front of your door, still make him jump the hoops....you are worth it! I love ya Belle darlin', and if I were a man, I'd date you in a heartbeat. :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheHighWay
I'm with you, Belle...
I'd much rather be without one than be with the wrong one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
This is the BEST advice any woman (or man) could ever get.
Some people believe it is better to have loved than not love at all. Those are people willing to take a bigger risk IMHO.
I'd rather learn my lesson in fewer times because as Sushi says:
THE LESSONS ARE REPEATED UNTIL THEY ARE LEARNED.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Not they are NOT. They focus on the family from a Christian perspective.
From that logic, that makes the NAACP a Negro dominionist group, the ACLU an athiest dominionist group, etc.
Christian dominionist do exist. FOTF are not them.
Back to topic...I can't even imagine dating again. :o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Yeah, I think I'd rather eat a razor blade sandwich than go out on a date.
And sorry Evan, maybe they're not "dominionist" (uh, what does that mean?), but Focus on the Family is creepy, as is their fearless leader.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
It's an observation of society and double standards. There are plenty of old men that are viewed as attractive by women -- George Clooney, Sean Connery, Harrison Ford, etc. Women, on the other hand, are pretty much forced to try to appear the same as they did in their 20's. I'm not saying that it's fair, but that is how our society operates.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I hate to drag this too far off topic, but FOTF are an extremist group and do support dominionist policies. They are in favor of forcing children to pray at school, they are trying to rewrite history to make people think the U.S. was founded upon Christianity, and they strongly influence the Republican party and are heavily involved with politics. Why would they be involved with politics and have those views that I mentioned if they were not dominionists?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I'd answer, Mosh, but you've made up your mind. Extremist? Please.
Is it okay for people, regardless their beliefs, to be politcally involved? Or is it that only 'approved list' beliefs need apply?
I hear ya, Geo on dating...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
And this is coming from someone who supposedly is annoyed by red herring arguments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
That depends on your definition of being "politically involved." If it is to strengthen the country and do good, then people should be involved. If the goal is to subvert the principles the country was founded upon (freedom, not religion) in order to force people to follow your religion, then I'm against it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
They're not trying to force people to follow their religion. They are advocating for the family, pure and simple, according to their stated principles.. You may disagree with their advocacy, fine. But it sounds like you'd like to be the arbiter of what constitutes acceptable free speech. I think muzzling them would be unconstitutional.
If you'll take an honest look at their ministry from top to bottom you'll see what an enormous force for good they've been. Don't let your disagreement with their political advocacy blind you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
The converse is also true (I'd much rather be without a woman than to be with the wrong one... I know, that might not technically be the converse, but it sounded good inside my head).
I willingly took that risk (as far as getting married) once... that was plenty for me.
btw, putting my thoughts in terms of the title of this thread, I REJECT eharmony as being discordant and any other adjective one might want to use.
Awh, come on Evan... you've got to know that's complete BS.
FOTF and Jim Dobson advocate (vociferously) to make US (yes, the US of A) live by their religion, by way of changes to the United States Code (federal laws) .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Nonsense. They consistently advocate on life issues, pornography, fatherhood, motherhood, child-raising issues, marriage issues, et al. Those are social issues, not religious. Their worldview that forms their position is informed by their Christianity, yes. Does that disqualify them from the the marketplace of public opinion?
Nobody's forcing anybody to do anything. A small part of their ministry is using public forii to attempt to influence public opinion on the issues they advocate. If they are successful, the public will elect (yes, by majority) officials who share their values. If they are unsuccessful, it won't happen. Do I characterize laws enacted by pro choicers (for instance) to increase access to abortion as forcing me to live by their beliefs. No. Why? That's Not Honest.
If you listened to their radio broadcast daily for a few weeks you'd quickly realize that their Focus is not political at all, but on the Family. That their Focus informs their political stance is as it should be.
eharmony? I already have harmony in the home, cultivated over 26 years and involving much yielding, cooperation, mutual support, forgiveness and at times, putting up with. I feel for those who haven't had marital success and I pray those who want another go at it have good success.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
As Jerry Seinfeld once sagely noted,
A date is like a job interview that goes on all night.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Yeah, Highway, I concur. I've come to really enjoy "my" time and "my" place and doing things with others when I choose to. I'm perfectly okay with being alone for the rest of my life if Mr. Perfect doesn't show up. I'd much rather be comfortable being me and being alone than with someone who doesn't share mutual love and respect.
Funny thing about eHarmony is I looked into it when I was doing the online dating thing and I didn't even want to sign up with them because it looked like a Christian dating site and the last person I want a relationship with is another religious Jesus freak - no matter what "ministry" he belongs to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
I guess that can be funny. But honestly if you feel you are on a job interview all night, then you probably won't be having another date with that person. Not all dates are that way. ;P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Something that just struck me,
why don't we ever see Mrs. Neil Clark Warren?
If this guy's such a hotshot matchmaker and all, it would be kinda ironic if he were single himself, wouldn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
There's information on the web saying his wife's name is Marilyn, and she is the VP of Eharmony. I haven't been able to find a picture. Maybe she wants Mr. Warren to be the PR man?
Here's a webiste with more information on him:
Eharmony Article
Look at the box with his credentials? Princeton theological seminary???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.